> >How about mass fuel cells to produce commercial quality electricity to
like
> >take the place of coal powerplants? or atleast a large fuel cell.
>
> Why do you have a fuel cell fixation ? If they would be so good they would
> be in use not. They aren't. They are a lso very expensive for now.


Where performance per mass/volume is THE measure, fuel cells are indeed in
use. The most visible (pun intended) example is arguably the Space Shuttle
which derives much of its electrical power (and its drinking water,
incidentally) from Oxygen-Hydrogen fuel cells. Having Oxygen & Hydrogen
available close to hand as commonplace materials doesn't hurt.

Optimised Fuel Cells are largely the most efficient way of converting
chemical energy to electrical energy. If you are not an Aerospace or
Military user the cost is liable to put you off.

Proton exchange membrane fuel cells using Methanol as a direct reactant look
like the promise of the future for fuel cells. Fuel energy density (mass and
volume) is much more easily obtained with Methanol than with Hydrogen. Mass
for mass Hydrogen is the hands down winner over alternatives BUT not when
energy density is concerned. Hydrogen storage on metal hydrides is the
current best hope for Hydrogen but is still not without its dangers.



        Russell McMahon

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email listserv@mitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body